553 
ties probably accounts for the discrepancy. In both of these cases 
the supplies might be made to comply with sanitary laws. 
In the following table is a synopsis of the results obtained in the 
present investigation. 
The symbols used in the column “ Sanitary rating” indicate, 
respectively, “G” for good, “B” for bad, and (?) for suspicious; in 
the column “Chemical analysis,” + for more or less evidence of pol- 
lution according to the standards given — for cases in which the 
substances indicative of pollution were found to be within limit pre- 
scribed for unpolluted water; under B. coli communis , + for the 
presence of the organism, — for its absence. Thus in the first line 
it is seen that there were 3 of the wells and 3 of the cisterns in Mary- 
land, and 4 of the wells and 4 of the cisterns in Virginia which were 
apparently good as far as sanitary inspection showed, but which were 
polluted according to the chemical analysis and also contained B. 
coli, while all the springs which are classified as “G” in the table do 
not all come fully up to sanitary requirements, it was considered 
advisable to classify those as such which have no obvious sources of 
pollution within a short distance and which have more or less pro- 
vision against contamination by way of coping. In reality there are 
very few springs which come up to the requirements stated in the 
article on “Sanitary water supplies for Dairy farms” in the present 
volume. 
Table I. — Maryland dairies. 
Sanitary 
rating. 
Chemical 
analysis. 
B. coli 
commu- 
nis. 
Number 
of wells. 
Number 
of 
springs. 
Number 
of 
cisterns. 
G 
+ 
+ 
4 
3 
G 
’+ 
- 
6 
4 
G 
- 
+ 
8 
2 
2 
G 
- 
- , 
22 
10 
G 
? 
+ 
12 
1 
1 
G 
? 
- 
8 
4 
1 
B 
+ 
+ 
3 
2 
B 
+ 
- 
3 
1 
B 
- 
+ 
3 
3 
B 
- 
- 
3 
3 
B 
? 
+ 
1 
6 
1 
B 
? 
- 
1 
1 
1 
? 
+ 
3 
? - 
+ 
1 
3 
? 
+ 
2 
1 
? 
_ 
1 
3 
? 
? 
+ 
7 
1 
1 
?. 
9 
- 
4 
1 
The salient points shown by the above table are that of 60 wells in 
Maryland which were pronounced good on sanitary inspection, 4 
